SeesSeas
FLORIDIAN
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2015
- Messages
- 7,249
- Reaction score
- 17,214
Randy Otto, forensic psychologist, associate chair of the Department of Mental Health Law & Policy at the University of South Florida.
https://www.tampabay.com/florida/2019/04/02/the-trial-of-john-jonchuck-day-11-getting-complicated/
LANE, ZACK AND JOSH (11:57 a.m.)
Several jurors are taking notes as Otto outlines his evaluation process. He explains competency evaluations as determining right now whether a person can go to court. But in this case he looked at insanity, analyzing Jonchuck’s mental state at the time of the killing.
“Somebody can be competent, but also insane, right?” asks Manuele.
“Yes,” says the psychologist. You can be doing well today, but that doesn’t speak to your mental state at the time of the incident, he says.
He interviewed Jonchuck three separate times, for 7 ½ hours total and administered psychological tests. Otto says people get tired, so he chose to do three separate interviews with Jonchuck instead of one long session — for his benefit and Jonchuck’s.
Before rendering his opinion, Otto says he also reviewed records from the Department of Children and Families, medical records, family law records, depositions of mental health professionals, phone and text logs, audio and video of Jonchuck’s interrogation, a Tampa Bay Times article about this case, and watched video-recorded press interviews from attorneys, friends, a priest, the mother of the deceased.
Otto outlines a multi-step process guided by the law for determining insanity. Note that his process mimics the jury instructions for considering insanity.
Machlus is excused, and the defense calls its next expert witness, forensic psychologist Randy Otto, associate chair of the Department of Mental Health Law & Policy at the University of South Florida. He’s been there 29 years, he says.
The defense brings up its next witness, Randy Otto, associate chair of the Department of Mental Health Law & Policy at the University of South Florida. He’s been there 29 years.
Jessica Manuele leads the questioning for the defense.
Otto says he teaches courses in professional ethics and forensic psychology and does legal presentations for judges and attorneys.
In private practice, Otto says he does not provide therapy but works only on evaluating people involved in litigation — criminal or civil. The vast majority of the time, he says, those people are criminal defendants.
Otto frequently looks to jurors as he speaks about his qualifications. He sometimes talks with his hands, and his voice rises and falls. He’s keeping their attention, and it’s clear he’s been in this position before.
He estimates he’s published 50 or 60 articles. He focuses on interactions between the legal and mental health systems, and co-authored books on expert testimony, the law of Florida for mental health professionals. All this makes it pretty clear to jurors that he’s an expert; it may seem tedious but it suggests to them they should take his testimony seriously.
Otto lumps his court work into three baskets: Competence, evaluating someone’s mental state at or around the time of offense, and sentencing evaluations after someone pleads guilty or is found guilty by a jury.
[...]
https://www.tampabay.com/florida/2019/04/02/the-trial-of-john-jonchuck-day-11-getting-complicated/
LANE, ZACK AND JOSH (11:57 a.m.)
Several jurors are taking notes as Otto outlines his evaluation process. He explains competency evaluations as determining right now whether a person can go to court. But in this case he looked at insanity, analyzing Jonchuck’s mental state at the time of the killing.
“Somebody can be competent, but also insane, right?” asks Manuele.
“Yes,” says the psychologist. You can be doing well today, but that doesn’t speak to your mental state at the time of the incident, he says.
He interviewed Jonchuck three separate times, for 7 ½ hours total and administered psychological tests. Otto says people get tired, so he chose to do three separate interviews with Jonchuck instead of one long session — for his benefit and Jonchuck’s.
Before rendering his opinion, Otto says he also reviewed records from the Department of Children and Families, medical records, family law records, depositions of mental health professionals, phone and text logs, audio and video of Jonchuck’s interrogation, a Tampa Bay Times article about this case, and watched video-recorded press interviews from attorneys, friends, a priest, the mother of the deceased.
Otto outlines a multi-step process guided by the law for determining insanity. Note that his process mimics the jury instructions for considering insanity.
- Was a person experiencing mental illness at the time of the offense?
- If yes, were the symptoms such that the person did not understand the wrongfulness of their actions?
Machlus is excused, and the defense calls its next expert witness, forensic psychologist Randy Otto, associate chair of the Department of Mental Health Law & Policy at the University of South Florida. He’s been there 29 years, he says.
The defense brings up its next witness, Randy Otto, associate chair of the Department of Mental Health Law & Policy at the University of South Florida. He’s been there 29 years.
Jessica Manuele leads the questioning for the defense.
Otto says he teaches courses in professional ethics and forensic psychology and does legal presentations for judges and attorneys.
In private practice, Otto says he does not provide therapy but works only on evaluating people involved in litigation — criminal or civil. The vast majority of the time, he says, those people are criminal defendants.
Otto frequently looks to jurors as he speaks about his qualifications. He sometimes talks with his hands, and his voice rises and falls. He’s keeping their attention, and it’s clear he’s been in this position before.
He estimates he’s published 50 or 60 articles. He focuses on interactions between the legal and mental health systems, and co-authored books on expert testimony, the law of Florida for mental health professionals. All this makes it pretty clear to jurors that he’s an expert; it may seem tedious but it suggests to them they should take his testimony seriously.
Otto lumps his court work into three baskets: Competence, evaluating someone’s mental state at or around the time of offense, and sentencing evaluations after someone pleads guilty or is found guilty by a jury.
[...]
